Pantaleon Pantaleon v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 28, 2025
• Docket: 24-2996
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 28 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DIANA MARLEN PANTALEON No. 24-2996 PANTALEON; CRISTIAN DARIEL NAJERA PANTALEON,* Agency Nos. A243-161-888 Petitioners, A243-161-889

v. MEMORANDUM** PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 23, 2025*** Portland, Oregon

Before: W. FLETCHER, CHRISTEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Diana Marlen Pantaleon Pantaleon and her son petition for review of a

Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision dismissing their appeal from the

Immigration Judge’s denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of

* Petitioners’ names are updated to reflect their birth certificates. ** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

1 removal, and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) protection. We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.

We review the BIA’s factual findings for substantial evidence. Plancarte

Sauceda v. Garland, 23 F.4th 824, 831 (9th Cir. 2022). Under that standard, the

BIA’s findings are “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be

compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Rodriguez Tornes v. Garland, 993 F.3d

743, 750 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioners did

not establish a nexus between their alleged harm and their family membership.

Asylum applicants must show that a protected ground was “at least one central

reason” for their persecution. Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1146 (9th Cir.

2021) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i)). Withholding of removal applicants

must show that a protected ground was “a reason” for their persecution. Id. at

1146 (quoting Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 359 (9th Cir. 2017)).

Here, the record supports the agency’s finding that Los Tlacos extorted Petitioners

solely for financial gain. Los Tlacos did not specifically target Diana’s husband

before he left their hometown of Zopilostoc because the group “took anybody, like,

any man . . . . [and] weren’t choosing who they were going to take. Likewise, Los

Tlacos did not specifically target Petitioners after Diana’s husband left because

Petitioners testified that Los Tlacos extorted around 20 unrelated individuals at

2 town meetings. A “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by

theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”

Macedo Templos v. Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 877, 883 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Zetino

v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010)).

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT protection

because Petitioners had not established that they were more likely than not to be

tortured with the acquiescence of a governmental official. Plancarte Sauceda, 23

F.4th at 834. Petitioners admitted Los Tlacos never tortured or even physically

harmed them. Nuru v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1207, 1217 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Past

torture is the first factor we consider in evaluating the likelihood of future torture . .

. .”). Los Tlacos has not looked for Petitioners since they left Zopilostoc, and their

remaining family members in Zopilostoc are unharmed. Additionally, Petitioners

failed to show that a government official acquiesced in Los Tlacos’s conduct. B.R.

v. Garland, 26 F.4th 827, 844–45 (9th Cir. 2022) (holding that substantial evidence

supported the BIA’s denial of CAT relief where CAT applicant alleged that the

Mexican government colluded with cartels and was generally ineffective).

PETITION DENIED.